FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: Lt. Fred on June 08, 2012, 10:49:46 pm
-
*Ban Affirmative Action, as it is a violation of the Civil Rights Act
Saw this on another thread, noted the obvious bullshit nature.
Obviously Affirmative Action is not a violation of the Civil Rights Act (as with all conservative propaganda, the claim that affirmative action is racist is false). Why do people believe this? Affirmative action requires society to act in a non-racist fashion- to hire qualified black (or Asian) applicants even if the racist employer would prefer to hire unqualified white employees. How is this racist? What is your alternative anti-racist policy?
-
Have law groups monitor employees.
-
You going to monitor their brainwaves?
-
Who they hire/promote and why over a period of time.
-
Affirmative action is simply needed because America's pervasive racism does not give people equal grounds to achieve the same thing. There are already examples where getting ride of affirmative action just makes an institution/organization more white. Besides, the biggest benefactor of Affirmative action is white women, anyways.
-
It's like this. Imagine there are two candidates for a nondescript job. One has a $300 000 mortgage, a spouse and two kids to support and very rapidly dwindling savings. The other has no kids, no mortgage and is able to fall back on their significant other's income. Now, with that in mind and assuming both are equally qualified, which one do you think (from a purely ethical standpoint) should get the job? Would you change your mind if either one or the other were white and the other a minority?
-
Affirmative action is simply needed because America's pervasive racism does not give people equal grounds to achieve the same thing. There are already examples where getting ride of affirmative action just makes an institution/organization more white. Besides, the biggest benefactor of Affirmative action is white women, anyways.
Ha, and they say feminism isn't a bourgeoisie ideology! Snark.
It's like this. Imagine there are two candidates for a nondescript job. One has a $300 000 mortgage, a spouse and two kids to support and very rapidly dwindling savings. The other has no kids, no mortgage and is able to fall back on their significant other's income. Now, with that in mind and assuming both are equally qualified, which one do you think (from a purely ethical standpoint) should get the job? Would you change your mind if either one or the other were white and the other a minority?
Don't most job applications ask for background information about your life about the experiences you had?
-
Don't most job applications ask for background information about your life about the experiences you had?
I'm not sure, though I'm just trying to illustrate why affirmative action is at best overly simplistic and extremely misguided.
-
Why don't colleges and the like just... eliminate the race section completely when they look over submissions for applicants? Then race isn't even a factor and they can judge work and achievements on their individual merit.
-
Because all parents are entitled fuckers when it comes to their special snowflakes. And I say this as a teacher's kid.
-
Who they hire/promote and why over a period of time.
So your alternative to affirmative action is affirmative action.
Why don't colleges and the like just... eliminate the race section completely when they look over submissions for applicants? Then race isn't even a factor and they can judge work and achievements on their individual merit.
That's the ultimate objective of affirmative action- remove being white as a category for people seeking employment, particularly well-paid employment. A black person should have the same chance of being employed as an equally-qualified white person.
Unfortunately, if there's one non-stupid criticism you can make of modern affirmative action, it's that it doesn't go far enough. If equally-qualified black people are employed at the same rate as white people, black people will still be disproportionately getting screwed, due to slavery/Jim Crow/Reagan et al. So how do you solve that? Well, as MLK said, white people did something special to black people, now they have to do something special FOR them, to make up for it. Black people have to be allowed into colleges at the proportion they exist in population, even if that might mean less-qualified black people get in- at least, that's what the Civil Rights Movement thought.
-
It's like this. Imagine there are two candidates for a nondescript job. One has a $300 000 mortgage, a spouse and two kids to support and very rapidly dwindling savings. The other has no kids, no mortgage and is able to fall back on their significant other's income. Now, with that in mind and assuming both are equally qualified, which one do you think (from a purely ethical standpoint) should get the job? Would you change your mind if either one or the other were white and the other a minority?
I'd just like to remind you that you're kind of required to respond to this, Freddy. Rules state you must at the very least acknowledge direct questions.
-
even if that might mean less-qualified black people get in- at least, that's what the Civil Rights Movement thought.
Which is an absolutely horrible idea. You can't use racism to solve racism. Plus it is unfair to the minorities who are qualified, because it may make other people think that they aren't qualified, and also think discrimination for them infantalises them.
In a meritocracy, nobody deserves special rights, and the people who are good enough to get in should get it.
Who they hire/promote and why over a period of time.
So your alternative to affirmative action is affirmative action.
No, AA is when the company hires/promotes people due to a lack of them, or hires a percent of people of a race based on the percent that applied (or more stupidly, the the percent that is in the population.) This plan is proving that the employers are racist.
-
So how do you solve that? Well, as MLK said, white people did something special to black people, now they have to do something special FOR them, to make up for it.
Umm. No. No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no.
For a supposed non-racist, you seem to have trouble grasping the fact that people aren't part of some sort of racial collective hive mind. Race is nothing more than a collection of superficial physical characteristics. You do know that you are essentially saying that anyone who is white is somehow responsible for slavery and the oppression of an entire race, regardless of whether or not they were even born when most of it happened, much less have the means or desire to do it, right? Sure, it's one thing to say that the well-off should try to give a hand-up to those who are worse off, but to judge whether nor not any given person is worthy of such a hand-up purely on their race is extremely misguided and poorly-thought out at its very best.
Furthermore.
It's like this. Imagine there are two candidates for a nondescript job. One has a $300 000 mortgage, a spouse and two kids to support and very rapidly dwindling savings. The other has no kids, no mortgage and is able to fall back on their significant other's income. Now, with that in mind and assuming both are equally qualified, which one do you think (from a purely ethical standpoint) should get the job? Would you change your mind if either one or the other were white and the other a minority?
I'd just like to remind you that you're kind of required to respond to this, Freddy. Rules state you must at the very least acknowledge direct questions.
I know you've been online since I've posted this and I know you've been reading this thread, seeing as you've been editing your posts quite recently. I'm not going to ask you again, either answer the questions or I'm reporting you to the mods.
-
I think basing Affirmative Action on actual financial need and not race would be fairer. I'm not opposed to private companies and universities who choose to put an Affirmative Action policy into place (heck, the ones that do this might get more minority applicants), but the government has no place in forcing that ideology upon other institutions or itself. Yes, it's an ideology, even if it's a true one.
Yes, white people fucked over basically every minority in US history. No, that doesn't mean their descendants have to be looked over for a position they are qualified for just because someone else who is equally qualified happens to be a minority. If it really gets down to the point where you have to pick between a white applicant and a black applicant, and both are equally qualified, and you want to be fair, flip a damn coin.
-
Well, as MLK said, white people did something special to black people, now they have to do something special FOR them, to make up for it.
I have do pay for something I didn't do? Isn't that one of the common pieces of BS we mock fundies for on the main page?
-
I know you've been online since I've posted this and I know you've been reading this thread, seeing as you've been editing your posts quite recently. I'm not going to ask you again, either answer the questions or I'm reporting you to the mods.
Screw you and your threats. I was thinking about it before making a snap response.
It's like this. Imagine there are two candidates for a nondescript job. One has a $300 000 mortgage, a spouse and two kids to support and very rapidly dwindling savings. The other has no kids, no mortgage and is able to fall back on their significant other's income. Now, with that in mind and assuming both are equally qualified, which one do you think (from a purely ethical standpoint) should get the job? Would you change your mind if either one or the other were white and the other a minority?
Look at it like a Keynesian would the economy. If all private actors act rationally (to maximise their own profit), sometimes you get an irrational result; recession. So you need an actor who is not constrained by the short-term profit motive (gubebrmint) to act 'irrationally'. And now you have a rational result.
It's true that it would be irrational for a business to hire your black person. In fact, it is illegal for a private company to hire minorities proportionately (since they are not proportionately qualified). That's why the government needs to act 'irrationally' and change the game. Well, okay. What should they do?
Allow me to edit this next bit you wrote so it's a little more clear.
For a supposed non-racist, you Martin Luthor King and the civil right movement seems to have trouble grasping the fact that people aren't part of some sort of racial collective hive mind. Race is nothing more than a collection of superficial physical characteristics. You Martin Luthor King and the civil right movement do know that you are essentially saying that anyone who is white is somehow responsible for slavery and the oppression of an entire race, regardless of whether or not they were even born when most of it happened, much less have the means or desire to do it, right? Sure, it's one thing to say that the well-off should try to give a hand-up to those who are worse off, but to judge whether nor not any given person is worthy of such a hand-up purely on their race is extremely misguided and poorly-thought out at its very best.
If you say so. But at least direct you accusations of anti-white racism where they should go.
-
It's true that it would be irrational for a business to hire your black person. In fact, it is illegal for a private company to hire minorities proportionately (since they are not proportionately qualified). That's why the government needs to act 'irrationally' and change the game. Well, okay. What should they do?
Government should get out of the business of telling private companies and organizations who they can and cannot hire.
-
So you agree with Ron Paul that companies should be able to fire (or not hire) people for being gay or black or whatever?
-
No, AA is when the company hires/promotes people due to a lack of them, or hires a percent of people of a race based on the percent that applied (or more stupidly, the the percent that is in the population.) This plan is proving that the employers are racist.
By looking who company X hires, ie affirmative action.
-
Yes, white people fucked over basically every minority in US history. No, that doesn't mean their descendants have to be looked over for a position they are qualified for just because someone else who is equally qualified happens to be a minority. If it really gets down to the point where you have to pick between a white applicant and a black applicant, and both are equally qualified, and you want to be fair, flip a damn coin.
Be clear. "I dislike what past generations have done to people on the basis of race. But I am not personally willing to give up the my privileged position in society to make good those wrongs, or to invest any money at all, to bear any cost or burden or do anything at all to end the scourge of racism in American society. Because I did not commit the acts in the first instance."
If that's what you think, that's what you think. I don't think that's acceptable, but that's just opinion.
-
So you agree with Ron Paul that companies should be able to fire (or not hire) people for being gay or black or whatever?
I think that companies should be allowed to choose not to hire someone for any reason. When a company does not hire a black man or a gay man, it is impossible to prove (outside of psychic powers or whatever) that the employer turned him down on the basis of race or sexual orientation.
I don't think that companies should be allowed to fire someone or give them unequal pay for equal work based off of bigoted reasons. Once a person is hired by an employer, the employer has an obligation to treat that employee the same way they would treat any other employee doing equal work.
-
So you agree with Ron Paul that companies should be able to fire (or not hire) people for being gay or black or whatever?
I think that companies should be allowed to choose not to hire someone for any reason. When a company does not hire a black man or a gay man, it is impossible to prove (outside of psychic powers or whatever) that the employer turned him down on the basis of race or sexual orientation.
I don't think that companies should be allowed to fire someone or give them unequal pay for equal work based off of bigoted reasons. Once a person is hired by an employer, the employer has an obligation to treat that employee the same way they would treat any other employee doing equal work.
It is possible actually through stats or they hire a dumbass for the position instead of the more qualified black guy
-
So you agree with Ron Paul that companies should be able to fire (or not hire) people for being gay or black or whatever?
I think that companies should be allowed to choose not to hire someone for any reason. When a company does not hire a black man or a gay man, it is impossible to prove (outside of psychic powers or whatever) that the employer turned him down on the basis of race or sexual orientation.
I don't think that companies should be allowed to fire someone or give them unequal pay for equal work based off of bigoted reasons. Once a person is hired by an employer, the employer has an obligation to treat that employee the same way they would treat any other employee doing equal work.
It is possible actually through stats or they hire a dumbass for the position instead of the more qualified black guy
I am having trouble understanding what you wrote, but I'll try to answer your question.
I think you are asking if it is possible for a company to hire a dumbass over a more-qualified black man.
My answer to that is, sadly, yes. And it happens all the time. If a company wants to risk its financial health just to maintain its own racism, that's its own problem that it will have to pay for.
-
So you agree with Ron Paul that companies should be able to fire (or not hire) people for being gay or black or whatever?
I think that companies should be allowed to choose not to hire someone for any reason. When a company does not hire a black man or a gay man, it is impossible to prove (outside of psychic powers or whatever) that the employer turned him down on the basis of race or sexual orientation.
I don't think that companies should be allowed to fire someone or give them unequal pay for equal work based off of bigoted reasons. Once a person is hired by an employer, the employer has an obligation to treat that employee the same way they would treat any other employee doing equal work.
It is possible actually through stats or they hire a dumbass for the position instead of the more qualified black guy
I am having trouble understanding what you wrote, but I'll try to answer your question.
I think you are asking if it is possible for a company to hire a dumbass over a more-qualified black man.
My answer to that is, sadly, yes. And it happens all the time. If a company wants to risk its financial health just to maintain its own racism, that's its own problem that it will have to pay for.
I dunno actually since I think that type is provable and I think you can actually sue I've seen it done before with an older man trying to be a firefighter.
-
It's true that it would be irrational for a business to hire your black person. In fact, it is illegal for a private company to hire minorities proportionately (since they are not proportionately qualified). That's why the government needs to act 'irrationally' and change the game. Well, okay. What should they do?
Government should get out of the business of telling private companies and organizations who they can and cannot hire.
That's not an option.
-
So you agree with Ron Paul that companies should be able to fire (or not hire) people for being gay or black or whatever?
I think that companies should be allowed to choose not to hire someone for any reason. When a company does not hire a black man or a gay man, it is impossible to prove (outside of psychic powers or whatever) that the employer turned him down on the basis of race or sexual orientation.
I don't think that companies should be allowed to fire someone or give them unequal pay for equal work based off of bigoted reasons. Once a person is hired by an employer, the employer has an obligation to treat that employee the same way they would treat any other employee doing equal work.
It is possible actually through stats or they hire a dumbass for the position instead of the more qualified black guy
I am having trouble understanding what you wrote, but I'll try to answer your question.
I think you are asking if it is possible for a company to hire a dumbass over a more-qualified black man.
My answer to that is, sadly, yes. And it happens all the time. If a company wants to risk its financial health just to maintain its own racism, that's its own problem that it will have to pay for.
I dunno actually since I think that type is provable and I think you can actually sue I've seen it done before with an older man trying to be a firefighter.
I presume that fire stations are public institutions where you live. In that case, I would definitely say that he could sue, because a public institution is supposed to be equally open to everybody. The government does not have the freedom to make judgments based on race, sexual orientation, etc., and this extends to their institutions.
-
Holy shit, this thread is annoying. O.o
Okay, I'll sum up my thoughts re: affirmative action and duck out immediately. I do NOT want to be part of this fight. While I think it could be managed better and implemented better, I think affirmative action is necessary because, while it would be nice to judge merely on merit, the trouble is that it ignores the causes of someone having less merit - an african-american who is less qualified because his parents didn't have the money to send him to college due to their own parents being discriminated against deserves a chance to improve his station.
Also, if you judge solely on merit, anyone who's less-than-perfect never has a chance to become better and more qualified, and will never get a satisfyingly-paying job.
-
Look at it like a Keynesian would the economy. If all private actors act rationally (to maximise their own profit), sometimes you get an irrational result; recession. So you need an actor who is not constrained by the short-term profit motive (gubebrmint) to act 'irrationally'. And now you have a rational result.
It's true that it would be irrational for a business to hire your black person. In fact, it is illegal for a private company to hire minorities proportionately (since they are not proportionately qualified). That's why the government needs to act 'irrationally' and change the game. Well, okay. What should they do?
"My black person"? I never said one of them was black. In fact, I never mentioned race at all. Now stop question dodging and give me a straight answer. Which do you think is more ethically deserving of the job? Yes or no. Also, would you change your answer if either one or the other were white and the other black? Yes or no.
Just so we're clear, that's a simple "yes" or "no" to both questions, mkay?
Allow me to edit this next bit you wrote so it's a little more clear.
For a supposed non-racist, you Martin Luthor King and the civil right movement seems to have trouble grasping the fact that people aren't part of some sort of racial collective hive mind. Race is nothing more than a collection of superficial physical characteristics. You Martin Luthor King and the civil right movement do know that you are essentially saying that anyone who is white is somehow responsible for slavery and the oppression of an entire race, regardless of whether or not they were even born when most of it happened, much less have the means or desire to do it, right? Sure, it's one thing to say that the well-off should try to give a hand-up to those who are worse off, but to judge whether nor not any given person is worthy of such a hand-up purely on their race is extremely misguided and poorly-thought out at its very best.
If you say so. But at least direct you accusations of anti-white racism where they should go.
I'm a little confused here. Are you trying to imply that these are just ol' Martin's veiws and not yours, or are you simply making an argumentum ad authoritatum?
-
Art, back the fuck off.
-
Art, back the fuck off.
If he's going to say everyone who disagrees with affirmative action is stupid and then dodge questions... No. No I will not. Deal with it.
-
Art, back the fuck off.
If he's going to say everyone who disagrees with affirmative action is stupid and then dodge questions... No. No I will not. Deal with it.
No, you back the fuck off.
You are going to cease this harassment. He answered your question. I am sorry that you didn't like the answer.
Now grow up and deal with it.
-
No, you back the fuck off.
You are going to cease this harassment. He answered your question. I am sorry that you didn't like the answer.
Now grow up and deal with it.
No he did not. I asked two simple yes and no questions and he dodged it. If you can discern a coherent answer to my questions from his post, by all means enlighten me.
-
No, you back the fuck off.
You are going to cease this harassment. He answered your question. I am sorry that you didn't like the answer.
Now grow up and deal with it.
No he did not. I asked two simple yes and no questions and he dodged it. If you can discern a coherent answer to my questions from his post, by all means enlighten me.
I am sorry that you were unable to understand his answer. However, that is not my responsibility to help you with that.
He addressed your question. That is all that is necessary out of him. You are in the wrong.
Now back the fuck off.
-
I am sorry that you were unable to understand his answer. However, that is not my responsibility to help you with that.
He addressed your question. That is all that is necessary out of him. You are in the wrong.
Now back the fuck off.
I'm extremely saddened that I need to explain this so many fucking times to you, but if you're not willing to even attempt to justify yourself, then I will not only be ignoring your attempts to order me around, but I will also mock you as long as you continue to attempt to do so, k? Now if you actually expect something to come of this, either justify why I should accept it as a valid answer, or go fuck yourself. Personally, I'm good with either.
-
Yes, white people fucked over basically every minority in US history. No, that doesn't mean their descendants have to be looked over for a position they are qualified for just because someone else who is equally qualified happens to be a minority. If it really gets down to the point where you have to pick between a white applicant and a black applicant, and both are equally qualified, and you want to be fair, flip a damn coin.
Be clear. "I dislike what past generations have done to people on the basis of race. But I am not personally willing to give up the my privileged position in society to make good those wrongs, or to invest any money at all, to bear any cost or burden or do anything at all to end the scourge of racism in American society. Because I did not commit the acts in the first instance."
If that's what you think, that's what you think. I don't think that's acceptable, but that's just opinion.
Disagreeing with affirmative action =/= not trying to solve racial problems in other ways. You are deliberately painting a racist strawman caricature of me that is not true. I do not deny for a second that I benefit from white privilege. But there is no grounds to force someone to pick an equally qualified applicant over me because of my skin color. If an employer wants to increase racial diversity in their company and choose to hire someone else rather than me, power to 'em. What I disagree with is legislating it into law and forcing private organizations to abide by it, or instituting any system that discriminates based on race into a public institution.
Also, on the last part I bolded. You might not think that my views are acceptable, but that is just your opinion, and there is nothing intrinsically better about your opinion that makes it acceptable to impose it on everyone else through law.
It's true that it would be irrational for a business to hire your black person. In fact, it is illegal for a private company to hire minorities proportionately (since they are not proportionately qualified). That's why the government needs to act 'irrationally' and change the game. Well, okay. What should they do?
Government should get out of the business of telling private companies and organizations who they can and cannot hire.
That's not an option.
Why?
-
I am sorry that you were unable to understand his answer. However, that is not my responsibility to help you with that.
He addressed your question. That is all that is necessary out of him. You are in the wrong.
Now back the fuck off.
I'm extremely saddened that I need to explain this so many fucking times to you, but if you're not willing to even attempt to justify yourself, then I will not only be ignoring your attempts to order me around, but I will also mock you as long as you continue to attempt to do so, k? Now if you actually expect something to come of this, either justify why I should accept it as a valid answer, or go fuck yourself. Personally, I'm good with either.
*sigh* I'm sorry that I have to explain the obvious to you.
First of all, he did directly answer your question. He went beyond the yes or no answer to expand on it and explain his answer.
Essentially, he was saying that it was more complicated than any yes or no or multiple choice question could answer. Multiple factors have to go into a situation, to make up for the lack of education that comes with people who fit the second person you listed.
In short, while one would rationally choose the person who, through the grace of fate and fortune, managed to already be successful enough to be able to qualify for the job, the government has to force an irrational decision.
The answer to your question was thus implicit.
He didn't dodge the question. You're dodging the answer. And your threats have placed you in the realm of harassment. You are bullying other forum members.
Back. Off.
-
*sigh* I'm sorry that I have to explain the obvious to you.
First of all, he did directly answer your question. He went beyond the yes or no answer to expand on it and explain his answer.
Essentially, he was saying that it was more complicated than any yes or no or multiple choice question could answer. Multiple factors have to go into a situation, to make up for the lack of education that comes with people who fit the second person you listed.
In short, while one would rationally choose the person who, through the grace of fate and fortune, managed to already be successful enough to be able to qualify for the job, the government has to force an irrational decision.
What the fuck are you rambling about now? I specifically stated in my question that both people were equally qualified for the job. I didn't say anything about person two's education or lack thereof. In a nutshell, the only information I gave about either was that person one was financially worse off than person two. Furthermore, I wasn't asking a vague question about why government regulations can be necessary, I was ultimately asking, based only on this financial need, which person ethically deserves that job more, and whether or not the answer would be changed if race were in some way or another added to the equation. Neither you nor Fred have even come close to answering that question and it quite frankly baffles me as to how you seemed to miss the point by a lightyear (intentional question dodging notwithstanding).
He didn't dodge the question. You're dodging the answer. And your threats have placed you in the realm of harassment. You are bullying other forum members.
Back. Off.
...Harassment, bullying?! You bleeding heart twit. He's free to simply state he doesn't want to answer any time he simply doesn't want to participate. Simply taking a harsh tone with someone in the middle of an argument when they're free to leave at any time is not harassment, nor is it bullying you stupid pillock. In fact, by your own asinine logic, you're currently bullying me.
-
...Harassment, bullying?! You bleeding heart twit. He's free to simply state he doesn't want to answer any time he simply doesn't want to participate. Simply taking a harsh tone with someone in the middle of an argument when they're free to leave at any time is not harassment, nor is it bullying you stupid pillock. In fact, by your own asinine logic, you're currently bullying me.
Threatening to report someone for "question dodging" is bullying, especially when they respond to your question and you insist that it's not enough.
You no longer have any high ground in this discussion.
It's clear that you're not interested in any actual discussion, either. You just want to be right. :-/
-
Nice that you completely ignored the part where I explained in detail why his answer was a dodge. You really make a convincing case for yourself there Zacho.
Threatening to report someone for "question dodging" is bullying, especially when they respond to your question and you insist that it's not enough.
...Especially?! So, you're saying that even threatening to report question-dodging on its own counts as bullying? Are you even thinking anymore about what you're saying, or do you seriously not fathom the sheer absurdity of the idea that informing someone that they're violating the rules of an internet forum is actual bullying? I swear, that has to be one of the most stupid things I've seen on this forum since the sugargate drama. Actually, scratch that. The stupidest thing I've seen on these forums since sugargate has to be the fact that you seem to sincerely believe that it'll convince me to take orders from you. I'm just astounded that any regular here can be that pants on head, petrol sniffing, chasing the girls around the playground with a piece of dog poo on a stick fucking stupid.
-
Art: What's the difference between a duck? Yes or no answer, or I report you.
-
Art: What's the difference between a duck? Yes or no answer, or I report you.
I believe it's your face.
Now are you going to answer the questions or not?
-
Art: What's the difference between a duck? Yes or no answer, or I report you.
I believe it's your face.
You didn't answer. It has to be a yes or no or it doesn't count.
-
Art: What's the difference between a duck? Yes or no answer, or I report you.
I believe it's your face.
You didn't answer. It has to be a yes or no or it doesn't count.
Well then, it'll go with yes.
No but seriously, make with the answers. Which do you think is more ethically deserving of the job? Yes or no One or two (shut up, you all knew what I meant). Also, would you change your answer if either one or the other were white and the other black? Yes or no.
Just so we're clear, that's a simple "yes" or "no" to both questions, mkay one or the other to question one and yes or no to question two?
Straight answer pls.
-
So you agree with Ron Paul that companies should be able to fire (or not hire) people for being gay or black or whatever?
I think that companies should be allowed to choose not to hire someone for any reason. When a company does not hire a black man or a gay man, it is impossible to prove (outside of psychic powers or whatever) that the employer turned him down on the basis of race or sexual orientation.
I don't think that companies should be allowed to fire someone or give them unequal pay for equal work based off of bigoted reasons. Once a person is hired by an employer, the employer has an obligation to treat that employee the same way they would treat any other employee doing equal work.
It is possible actually through stats or they hire a dumbass for the position instead of the more qualified black guy
I am having trouble understanding what you wrote, but I'll try to answer your question.
I think you are asking if it is possible for a company to hire a dumbass over a more-qualified black man.
My answer to that is, sadly, yes. And it happens all the time. If a company wants to risk its financial health just to maintain its own racism, that's its own problem that it will have to pay for.
I dunno actually since I think that type is provable and I think you can actually sue I've seen it done before with an older man trying to be a firefighter.
I presume that fire stations are public institutions where you live. In that case, I would definitely say that he could sue, because a public institution is supposed to be equally open to everybody. The government does not have the freedom to make judgments based on race, sexual orientation, etc., and this extends to their institutions.
I actually used that as an example but I'm sure I could find a case of hiring discrimination http://laws.findlaw.com/us/401/424.html
-
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpf84zFLNl1qjvxfho1_500.jpg)
Frankly nothing good could come of a thread that implicitly states that anyone who disagrees with Affirmative Action is stupid and a hater of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Zachski, I'm going to have to politely disagree with you here. I think that Art asking Fred to answer his question and clarify his answer further is perfectly warranted. Art has already shown that Fred did not really address his question.
As for the "bullying" charge, If Fred wanted to make clear that he planned to answer Art's question later when he could think about it more, he could have simply said so. Instead, he avoided the question while answering other questions instead, including my own. When a person gets reported to the mods for not answering a question, the typical result is not an instaban, but a polite reminder to answer the question or provide some other indication if they will or will not answer and why. Art himself was trying to remind Fred several times that he is obligated to at least address his question without resorting to the mods. At that point, nothing about Art's requests were harassment in any form. (I am not defending his later, more insulting posts towards you, however. That is rude, and it is harassment.)
I actually used that as an example but I'm sure I could find a case of hiring discrimination http://laws.findlaw.com/us/401/424.html
The Act requires the elimination of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance, it is prohibited, notwithstanding the employer's lack of discriminatory intent.
Thanks for the link, kef. :) I'm not opposed to this (for public institutions). If a state government, for instance, requires its governor to profess a belief in God, that is against the law because belief in God has no bearing on whether or not the person is qualified as governor. To the best of my knowledge, high school diplomas are not really necessary to be a firefighter, so I agree with this document in that a public fire station should eliminate that requirement from its hiring criteria.
But in a private organization, even if you institute laws to say you can't refuse to hire someone because of their race, they will still find a way around it. Sometimes it is very hard to tell the difference between a misguided requirement (i.e., driving distance to work, number of children, presence of tattoos) and a bigoted requirement (i.e., being white, being Christian, being straight, etc.)
-
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpf84zFLNl1qjvxfho1_500.jpg)
Frankly nothing good could come of a thread that implicitly states that anyone who disagrees with Affirmative Action is stupid and a hater of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Zachski, I'm going to have to politely disagree with you here. I think that Art asking Fred to answer his question and clarify his answer further is perfectly warranted. Art has already shown that Fred did not really address his question.
As for the "bullying" charge, If Fred wanted to make clear that he planned to answer Art's question later when he could think about it more, he could have simply said so. Instead, he avoided the question while answering other questions instead, including my own. When a person gets reported to the mods for not answering a question, the typical result is not an instaban, but a polite reminder to answer the question or provide some other indication if they will or will not answer and why. Art himself was trying to remind Fred several times that he is obligated to at least address his question without resorting to the mods. At that point, nothing about Art's requests were harassment in any form. (I am not defending his later, more insulting posts towards you, however. That is rude, and it is harassment.)
Then we are going to have to continue to politely disagree. If he had said "Again, this is a direct question, and I would like you to address that", this is one thing, even if it wasn't as polite as I had put it, but to say "Answer this or I will report you to the mods" crossed the line and raised red flags for me.
I still feel as though Fred's answer addressed the question and was not question dodging.
Thank you for being reasonable about this, though.
-
Then we are going to have to continue to politely disagree. If he had said "Again, this is a direct question, and I would like you to address that", this is one thing, even if it wasn't as polite as I had put it, but to say "Answer this or I will report you to the mods" crossed the line and raised red flags for me.
I'm not going to constantly be treading on eggshells in discussions that have nothing to do with you just because you've got a hair trigger sensitivity. Simple as that.
-
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpf84zFLNl1qjvxfho1_500.jpg)
Frankly nothing good could come of a thread that implicitly states that anyone who disagrees with Affirmative Action is stupid and a hater of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Zachski, I'm going to have to politely disagree with you here. I think that Art asking Fred to answer his question and clarify his answer further is perfectly warranted. Art has already shown that Fred did not really address his question.
As for the "bullying" charge, If Fred wanted to make clear that he planned to answer Art's question later when he could think about it more, he could have simply said so. Instead, he avoided the question while answering other questions instead, including my own. When a person gets reported to the mods for not answering a question, the typical result is not an instaban, but a polite reminder to answer the question or provide some other indication if they will or will not answer and why. Art himself was trying to remind Fred several times that he is obligated to at least address his question without resorting to the mods. At that point, nothing about Art's requests were harassment in any form. (I am not defending his later, more insulting posts towards you, however. That is rude, and it is harassment.)
I actually used that as an example but I'm sure I could find a case of hiring discrimination http://laws.findlaw.com/us/401/424.html
The Act requires the elimination of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and, if, as here, an employment practice that operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance, it is prohibited, notwithstanding the employer's lack of discriminatory intent.
Thanks for the link, kef. :) I'm not opposed to this (for public institutions). If a state government, for instance, requires its governor to profess a belief in God, that is against the law because belief in God has no bearing on whether or not the person is qualified as governor. To the best of my knowledge, high school diplomas are not really necessary to be a firefighter, so I agree with this document in that a public fire station should eliminate that requirement from its hiring criteria.
But in a private organization, even if you institute laws to say you can't refuse to hire someone because of their race, they will still find a way around it. Sometimes it is very hard to tell the difference between a misguided requirement (i.e., driving distance to work, number of children, presence of tattoos) and a bigoted requirement (i.e., being white, being Christian, being straight, etc.)
The company is a privite one. I get that but lets agree that you can sue if the company outright says we take no blacks
-
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpf84zFLNl1qjvxfho1_500.jpg)
Frankly nothing good could come of a thread that implicitly states that anyone who disagrees with Affirmative Action is stupid and a hater of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Zachski, I'm going to have to politely disagree with you here. I think that Art asking Fred to answer his question and clarify his answer further is perfectly warranted. Art has already shown that Fred did not really address his question.
As for the "bullying" charge, If Fred wanted to make clear that he planned to answer Art's question later when he could think about it more, he could have simply said so. Instead, he avoided the question while answering other questions instead, including my own. When a person gets reported to the mods for not answering a question, the typical result is not an instaban, but a polite reminder to answer the question or provide some other indication if they will or will not answer and why. Art himself was trying to remind Fred several times that he is obligated to at least address his question without resorting to the mods. At that point, nothing about Art's requests were harassment in any form. (I am not defending his later, more insulting posts towards you, however. That is rude, and it is harassment.)
Then we are going to have to continue to politely disagree. If he had said "Again, this is a direct question, and I would like you to address that", this is one thing, even if it wasn't as polite as I had put it, but to say "Answer this or I will report you to the mods" crossed the line and raised red flags for me.
He actually did just that, initially. The first time he reminded Fred to answer the question, he simply said that answering all direct questions addressed to you is in the rules. He did not say that he would immediately involve the mods, or attempt to get Fred banned. When Art did not have his question addressed after that reminder, then he brought up the mods.
And my point was that even if Art did report Fred to the mods or even meant it as a threat, the actual consequences would be basically harmless. The mods we have right now on these FSTDT forums aren't like the ones over at CARM, who will ban you without warning for the most minor of offenses. In previous situations like this, the mods have simply come into a thread to remind the posters to calm down and answer the questions. Threats of the banhammer are not issued right away, they are a last resort. Even if Art had called the mods on Fred, it would not have had any consequences for Fred, provided that he answered the question, or gave some other indication that he did or did not plan to answer it.
In a situation where I am not answering someone else's question, for whatever reason, I would rather have that person (politely) cite the rules or the possibility of involving moderators to me, instead of alerting the mods immediately without even attempting to remind me first.
I still feel as though Fred's answer addressed the question and was not question dodging.
I don't mean to toot my own horn (oh what am I saying, of course I do), but I am a person who prides herself on her reading comprehension ability, and even I'm confused as to how Fred's response answered Art's question. If you've seen something in his response that I've missed, please point out where Fred specifically addressed the questions Art posed.
Thank you for being reasonable about this, though.
Yes, you're welcome. Actually, my original response was full of all sorts of angry reactionary butthurt, but I only realized it when I came back from the dinner table. Then I rewrote the whole thing, and trimmed it down considerably. Funny what taking a break to chill out can do to your attitude. :P
EDIT: Trying not to double post.
The company is a privite one. I get that but lets agree that you can sue if the company outright says we take no blacks
If a private restaurant, for instance, outright refuses to hire or serve black people, and there are anti-discrimination laws in place that say it is a crime, then there is legal justification to sue them because we know beyond a reasonable doubt that their practices are based off of racism.
I do not agree with the restaurant on moral and financial grounds. Refusing to serve an entire group of people for bigoted reasons can hurt your business in the long run. It eliminates potential consumers, and not just from the group being discriminated against. It can also lead others to boycott your business if they disagree with its practices.
There are some situations where discrimination makes sense. If a Jewish deli sees a bunch of neo-Nazi skinheads walk in, the owners have reason to fear for their safety and the safety of their customers, and have every right to kick them out. And if I own a gay bar and Fred Phelps walks in, I have every right to throw him out into the streets on his bony ass.
-
Art: What's the difference between a duck? Yes or no answer, or I report you.
I believe it's your face.
You didn't answer. It has to be a yes or no or it doesn't count.
Well then, it'll go with yes.
Did you get it? Sometimes a yes or no answer is meaningless, or less meaningful than a longer response, a response I gave.
In other words, I've answered your hypothetical. It's fair and rational for a business to pick the white candidate, which is why the government should step in.
Disagreeing with affirmative action =/= not trying to solve racial problems in other ways.
But on what basis do you disagree with AA? It's to costly for the beneficiaries of a legacy of racism- you and I- who, you believe, should not bear the burden of ending that legacy. You didn't argue against AA on the basis that it wouldn't work, you argued against it on the basis that white people would have to pay, and shouldn't.
Also, silly glibertarianism:
But there is no grounds to force someone to pick an equally qualified applicant over me because of my skin color.
Also, on the last part I bolded. You might not think that my views are acceptable, but that is just your opinion, and there is nothing intrinsically better about your opinion that makes it acceptable to impose it on everyone else through law.
Then there can be no law. All law is based in opinion.
Government should get out of the business of telling private companies and organizations who they can and cannot hire.
That's not an option.
Why?
Glibertarianism is far too costly to be sustainable.
Edit for the record: I don't much care about Art's threat. I think he's an asshole for making it, but then I thought that before hand.
-
It's like this. Imagine there are two candidates for a nondescript job. One has a $300 000 mortgage, a spouse and two kids to support and very rapidly dwindling savings. The other has no kids, no mortgage and is able to fall back on their significant other's income. Now, with that in mind and assuming both are equally qualified, which one do you think (from a purely ethical standpoint) should get the job? Would you change your mind if either one or the other were white and the other a minority?
I'd just like to remind you that you're kind of required to respond to this, Freddy. Rules state you must at the very least acknowledge direct questions.
Not valid. It only applies if you directly address the person and directly says the question is meant for that person. Since that wasn't the case, the person can choose not to respond.
-
We could argue until the cows come home about the alleged merits and drawbacks of Affirmative Action, but we need to ask ourselves: why do we still have a such a policy in the first place?
In my opinion, if we could actually do something about the prevalence of urban decay, the decline of of the American economy, and the ever-spiraling cost of education, it would make Affirmative Action largely obsolete.
I recognize that government cannot, and will not, make everyone equal in all ways. But we could at least acknowledge and attempt to remedy the underlying roots of the problem. Remember that there is a huge White underclass in the USA too. They are at least as disadvantaged as the Black and Hispanic underclass, but Affirmative Action does nothing for them.
Affirmative Action is the legal equivalent of taking Aspirin for a toothache. It may get rid of the pain for a little while, but it won't halt the progress of the infection.
-
Aye, and let's not forget, legislating morality does not automatically make evil people good. In fact, morality laws can be easily abused by evil people to achieve evil ends while still remaining within the letter of the law. Also, I agree with Fpqxz, while racism is still a problem, we have lots of problems that contribute to that, chief among those being massive urban decay. I mean, fucking staggering. I forget exactly where it was posted, but I remember someone posting a video about Detroit basically being ground zero for the recession, and exploring all the decaying buildings, the half-finished homes, the failed attempts at gentrification.
But, I don't even need to go to Michigan to see this, its happening in my own state, Arkansas. Pine Bluff. It used to be one of the better cities in my state, it had steel mills, paper mills, it was a large rail hub, even had a pretty good mall and a fair bit of decent suburban living space. But, just within my lifetime, Pine Bluff has gone from one of the better examples of Arkansas' urban areas to a dying, abandoned city populated only by people who can't afford to leave, and is rife with extreme gang violence. Its gotten so bad that the gangs use firebombings as a rite of passage. No joke, I saw the fucking aftermath of one. The Pines Mall, once one of the better malls in the state, is almost totally dead. In fact, just a few years ago, the last time my brother and I were there, the only place that was open in there that was worth anything was a Mexican restaurant in the food court, almost every single shop there was closed down.
Pine Bluff is dead, and the gangs are cannibalizing what's left of the town. The steel mills are all closed down, there's only one active paper mill left...I think, and the police have pretty much given up on enforcing the law.
I've witnessed urban decay for myself, and its horrible. We need to fix this before it becomes an epidemic that we can no longer control.
-
Did you get it? Sometimes a yes or no answer is meaningless, or less meaningful than a longer response, a response I gave.
In other words, I've answered your hypothetical. It's fair and rational for a business to pick the white candidate, which is why the government should step in.
So basically, that's a candidate one deserves the job, and it would stay that way regardless of his race, aye?
Though how you can both claim that affirmative action is something other than "fair and rational" and still vehemently support it is beyond me.
-
Disagreeing with affirmative action =/= not trying to solve racial problems in other ways.
But on what basis do you disagree with AA? It's to costly for the beneficiaries of a legacy of racism- you and I- who, you believe, should not bear the burden of ending that legacy. You didn't argue against AA on the basis that it wouldn't work, you argued against it on the basis that white people would have to pay, and shouldn't.
Again, I do believe that white people bear the burden of ending racism. Where you get this idea that I am some sort of anti-activist, I have no idea. I have no problem with Affirmative Action except when it is forced on private businesses and instituted in public institutions where race shouldn't be a factor. I've said several times in this thread that if an employer wants to run its own Affirmative Action policy, that should be their right. Hell, the ones that do might get more minority applicants because of it.
Also, silly glibertarianism:
But there is no grounds to force someone to pick an equally qualified applicant over me because of my skin color.
Also, on the last part I bolded. You might not think that my views are acceptable, but that is just your opinion, and there is nothing intrinsically better about your opinion that makes it acceptable to impose it on everyone else through law.
Then there can be no law. All law is based in opinion.
If you are only going to dismiss my views out of hand as "silly" and insult them for no reason, then there is clearly no purpose in continuing this discussion with you.
You cannot impose a freedom on anybody. Does it make sense for a government to say, "Hey, I'm going to force you to have the freedom to follow whatever religion you want!"
Government should get out of the business of telling private companies and organizations who they can and cannot hire.
That's not an option.
Why?
Glibertarianism is far too costly to be sustainable.
Explain, please. And stop insulting my views and dismissing me with unfunny puns in lieu of actual arguments.
-
Since Keiro has addressed about the direct question thing I am going to move on from that.
However, this is FSTDT and it does get heated and people will get under each other's skin during contentious debates and this is a very open and laid back forum which is why I love it. Though things do get too heated and it is the job of the mods to keep things under control. So everyone just calm down and go continue the discussion at hand in a civilized manner.
-
I've witnessed urban decay for myself, and its horrible. We need to fix this before it becomes an epidemic that we can no longer control.
You're preaching to the choir here, buddy. I live in New Jersey. I've seen what has happened to cities like Paterson, Newark, Trenton, and Camden...once hubs of industry, now contaminated, decayed, crime-ridden hellholes.
It's easy--simplistic, in fact--to blame the Blacks, the Hispanics, the Jews, [fill in ethnic group here] for the problem, when the root cause is the deindustrialization brought on by the neoliberal policy of "free trade and deregulation, no matter the cost." Just as African-Americans were winning the civil rights battle in the 1960s and 70s, the jobs were already beginning to move overseas. Thus, it is my own personal theory that deindustrialization has probably done at least as much harm to the Black community as racism/Jim Crow has.
There has been some recovery in these communities, particularly Newark and Paterson. Part of this has been the result of political pressures on the NJ state government (a corrupt and inefficient beast in the best of times), but much of it, interestingly, has been the result of immigration. Many of the more enterprising immigrants, especially those from India and Central/South America, have come in and set up businesses. Of course, the economics of immigration is itself a controversial topic, and is best left for another thread. 8)
-
Did you get it? Sometimes a yes or no answer is meaningless, or less meaningful than a longer response, a response I gave.
In other words, I've answered your hypothetical. It's fair and rational for a business to pick the white candidate, which is why the government should step in.
So basically, that's a candidate one deserves the job, and it would stay that way regardless of his race, aye?
Though how you can both claim that affirmative action is something other than "fair and rational" and still vehemently support it is beyond me.
The government isn't like a private business. Also, short-term utility isn't synonymous with long-term.
-
*Ban Affirmative Action, as it is a violation of the Civil Rights Act
Saw this on another thread, noted the obvious bullshit nature.
Obviously Affirmative Action is not a violation of the Civil Rights Act (as with all conservative propaganda, the claim that affirmative action is racist is false). Why do people believe this? Affirmative action requires society to act in a non-racist fashion- to hire qualified black (or Asian) applicants even if the racist employer would prefer to hire unqualified white employees. How is this racist? What is your alternative anti-racist policy?
As a kid, I was told that AA required every company to hire at least one black person. If there were no qualified black applicants for a job, therefore, AA meant you had to hire pretty much the next black person to apply for a position whether zie was qualified or not. I've also heard the "quotas" variation, where allegedly the percentage of employees who are black HAS to match the percentage of black people in the local population.
I'm betting that most of the people who oppose AA are similarly misinformed.
-
Did you get it? Sometimes a yes or no answer is meaningless, or less meaningful than a longer response, a response I gave.
In other words, I've answered your hypothetical. It's fair and rational for a business to pick the white candidate, which is why the government should step in.
So basically, that's a candidate one deserves the job, and it would stay that way regardless of his race, aye?
Though how you can both claim that affirmative action is something other than "fair and rational" and still vehemently support it is beyond me.
The government isn't like a private business. Also, short-term utility isn't synonymous with long-term.
If anything the, long term effects will be a more racist society, due to the fact that not only are any disadvantaged whites being given less assistance, but also because government policies like that legitimise the idea that it's ok to treat people differently based on their race.
-
*Ban Affirmative Action, as it is a violation of the Civil Rights Act
Saw this on another thread, noted the obvious bullshit nature.
Obviously Affirmative Action is not a violation of the Civil Rights Act (as with all conservative propaganda, the claim that affirmative action is racist is false). Why do people believe this? Affirmative action requires society to act in a non-racist fashion- to hire qualified black (or Asian) applicants even if the racist employer would prefer to hire unqualified white employees. How is this racist? What is your alternative anti-racist policy?
As a kid, I was told that AA required every company to hire at least one black person. If there were no qualified black applicants for a job, therefore, AA meant you had to hire pretty much the next black person to apply for a position whether zie was qualified or not. I've also heard the "quotas" variation, where allegedly the percentage of employees who are black HAS to match the percentage of black people in the local population.
I'm betting that most of the people who oppose AA are similarly misinformed.
To the best of my understanding, in the United States, Affirmative Action is the policy of picking the minority applicant over the non-minority applicant if both are otherwise equally qualified and equally desirable. (Basically, if you can't choose, pick the minority.)
Though there are some people who seem to be under the impression that Affirmative Action is about racial quotas (which are now illegal in the U.S.) or giving people "bonus points" on college applications for being a minority (which has been ruled unconstitutional). ("Oh, you're black? +20 points!") There are some other countries (like Brazil and Israel) that do use quotas.
-
Disagreeing with affirmative action =/= not trying to solve racial problems in other ways.
But on what basis do you disagree with AA? It's to costly for the beneficiaries of a legacy of racism- you and I- who, you believe, should not bear the burden of ending that legacy. You didn't argue against AA on the basis that it wouldn't work, you argued against it on the basis that white people would have to pay, and shouldn't.
Again, I do believe that white people bear the burden of ending racism. Where you get this idea that I am some sort of anti-activist, I have no idea. I have no problem with Affirmative Action except when it is forced on private businesses and instituted in public institutions where race shouldn't be a factor. I've said several times in this thread that if an employer wants to run its own Affirmative Action policy, that should be their right. Hell, the ones that do might get more minority applicants because of it.
Sure, there's the glibertarian justification- capital, not democracy, should run society. It's not your only justification.
Yes, white people fucked over basically every minority in US history. No, that doesn't mean their descendants have to be looked over for a position they are qualified for just because someone else who is equally qualified happens to be a minority. If it really gets down to the point where you have to pick between a white applicant and a black applicant, and both are equally qualified, and you want to be fair, flip a damn coin.
Too costly for white people, who shouldn't have to pay.
Also, silly glibertarianism:
But there is no grounds to force someone to pick an equally qualified applicant over me because of my skin color.
Also, on the last part I bolded. You might not think that my views are acceptable, but that is just your opinion, and there is nothing intrinsically better about your opinion that makes it acceptable to impose it on everyone else through law.
Then there can be no law. All law is based in opinion.
If you are only going to dismiss my views out of hand as "silly" and insult them for no reason, then there is clearly no purpose in continuing this discussion with you.
You cannot impose a freedom on anybody. Does it make sense for a government to say, "Hey, I'm going to force you to have the freedom to follow whatever religion you want!" [/quote]
Propaganda. Government does not 'impose freedom', it allows it. This is a good example of the emptiness and silliness of glibertarian 'philosophy'. Like your false dichotomy between law based in 'opinion' and faux-Natural law, based entirely in fact. All law is based in opinion, all law is legislated morality.
It's 'glib', not lib because libertarian philosophy (Proudhon, Bakunin and so on) is the opposite to glibertarianism, not similar.
Glibertarianism is far too costly to be sustainable.
Explain, please. And stop insulting my views and dismissing me with unfunny puns in lieu of actual arguments.
Essentially, glibertarianism excludes a lot of government action (taxation, heavy regulation, Keynesian counter-cyclical policy) that is absolutely necessary for a working society. Look at glibertarianism is action- somewhere like Chile, which has moved from one economic collapse to another, with the economy barely holding together at all. Glibertarianism is wrong because it's impossible. You can't have 'small government', to use the derogatory phrase for good government. It doesn't work.
-
Did you get it? Sometimes a yes or no answer is meaningless, or less meaningful than a longer response, a response I gave.
In other words, I've answered your hypothetical. It's fair and rational for a business to pick the white candidate, which is why the government should step in.
So basically, that's a candidate one deserves the job, and it would stay that way regardless of his race, aye?
Though how you can both claim that affirmative action is something other than "fair and rational" and still vehemently support it is beyond me.
The government isn't like a private business. Also, short-term utility isn't synonymous with long-term.
If anything the, long term effects will be a more racist society, due to the fact that not only are any disadvantaged whites being given less assistance, but also because government policies like that legitimise the idea that it's ok to treat people differently based on their race.
Complete bullshit.
-
If anything the, long term effects will be a more racist society, due to the fact that not only are any disadvantaged whites being given less assistance, but also because government policies like that legitimise the idea that it's ok to treat people differently based on their race.
Complete bullshit.
...That's all you've got to say then?
-
If anything the, long term effects will be a more racist society, due to the fact that not only are any disadvantaged whites being given less assistance, but also because government policies like that legitimise the idea that it's ok to treat people differently based on their race.
Complete bullshit.
...That's all you've got to say then?
Ending racism isn't a form of racism.
-
It's not ending racism, it's creating more racism. If you can't refute this, you shouldn't respond.
-
Ending racism isn't a form of racism.
Basing forms of government assistance on race and only race with no thought to other circumstances will not end racism, it just perpetuates it.
-
Ending racism isn't a form of racism.
Basing forms of government assistance on race and only race with no thought to other circumstances will not end racism, it just perpetuates it.
A strawman. This is not an accurate description of Affirmative Action.
-
A strawman. This is not an accurate description of Affirmative Action.
In its current form, it basically states that when you have two or more equally qualified would-be employees, you must hire a minority over a white. If that's not race-selective government assistance, I don't fucking know what is.
Now are you going to actually address the fact that it just assumes any given person is disadvantaged or not based only on race, or that it legitimises the idea that people of different races should be treated differently, or are you just going to argue semantics?
-
Basing forms of government assistance on race and only race with no thought to other circumstances will not end racism, it just perpetuates it.
Strawman.
Now are you going to actually address the fact that it just assumes any given person is disadvantaged or not based only on race,
Strawman.
or that it legitimises the idea that people of different races should be treated differently, or are you just going to argue semantics?
Trying to treat people the same is not the same as treating them differently.
-
Basing forms of government assistance on race and only race with no thought to other circumstances will not end racism, it just perpetuates it.
Strawman.
Now are you going to actually address the fact that it just assumes any given person is disadvantaged or not based only on race,
Strawman.
Do elaborate.
or that it legitimises the idea that people of different races should be treated differently, or are you just going to argue semantics?
Trying to treat people the same is not the same as treating them differently.
Saying you must hire someone over someone else because of their race is not treating people the same, genius.
-
or that it legitimises the idea that people of different races should be treated differently, or are you just going to argue semantics?
Trying to treat people the same is not the same as treating them differently.
[/quote]
Saying you must hire someone over someone else because of their race is not treating people the same, genius.
[/quote]
Currently, society hates black people, treating them differently as a result. Trying to end that is not the same thing as it. Ending a practice is not the same as the practice.
-
Currently, society hates black people, treating them differently as a result. Trying to end that is not the same thing as it. Ending a practice is not the same as the practice.
So your solution to the problem of treating people differently based on race... Is even more race-based differing treatment that is this time enforced by the government. Are you seriously not seeing the flaw in that logic?
I notice you also failed to justify why my other points are strawmen. Just sayin'.
-
Currently, society hates black people, treating them differently as a result. Trying to end that is not the same thing as it. Ending a practice is not the same as the practice.
So your solution to the problem of treating people differently based on race... Is even more race-based differing treatment that is this time enforced by the government. Are you seriously not seeing the flaw in that logic?
The answer to people kidnapping other people... is even more kidnap, this time enforced by the government. The answer to another country invading yours and killing people... is even more killing. The answer to an overdose of drugs... is even more drugs.
Yes, discrimination is sometimes justified. Affirmative action is justified discrimination. Racism is unjustified. That's the difference.
-
The answer to people kidnapping other people... is even more kidnap, this time enforced by the government. The answer to another country invading yours and killing people... is even more killing. The answer to an overdose of drugs... is even more drugs.
The solution to over eating is to eat even more, the solution to shitting your pants is to shit your pants even more! Yay for completely fucking retarded comparisons!
Yes, discrimination is sometimes justified. Affirmative action is justified discrimination. Racism is unjustified. That's the difference.
Only in the rather rare case when race actually influences a person's ability to do a certain job, such as acting. Otherwise, ending racism is the very last fucking thing that race-based hiring policies will ever achieve.
-
The answer to people kidnapping other people... is even more kidnap,
Punishing the perpertrators is not the same as punishing innocent people.
The answer to another country invading yours and killing people... is even more killing.
Similar to the first one, we're generally only killing the soldiers. Killing civilians should rarely be an option.
The answer to an overdose of drugs... is even more drugs.
This is just plain stupid. The drugs were specifically designed and tested to work. Your theory of AA didn't.
-
The answer to people kidnapping other people... is even more kidnap, this time enforced by the government. The answer to another country invading yours and killing people... is even more killing. The answer to an overdose of drugs... is even more drugs.
The solution to over eating is to eat even more, the solution to shitting your pants is to shit your pants even more! Yay for completely fucking retarded comparisons!
X=X, therefore Y=Y? No.
Yes, discrimination is sometimes justified. Affirmative action is justified discrimination. Racism is unjustified. That's the difference.
Only in the rather rare case when race actually influences a person's ability to do a certain job, such as acting. Otherwise, ending racism is the very last fucking thing that racial discrimination will ever achieve.
[/quote]
Discrimination between competent and incompetent employees is justified. Equally, affirmative action is justified.
-
X=X, therefore Y=Y? No.
Maybe I'm just being a thickie, but I've got no fucking clue as to how that's even remotely relates to anything that was said in this thread.
Discrimination between competent and incompetent employees is justified. Equally, affirmative action is justified.
People who are incompetent are objectively worse employees than their competent counterparts. People who are black are objectively no better or worse than people of any other race.
-
Disagreeing with affirmative action =/= not trying to solve racial problems in other ways.
But on what basis do you disagree with AA? It's to costly for the beneficiaries of a legacy of racism- you and I- who, you believe, should not bear the burden of ending that legacy. You didn't argue against AA on the basis that it wouldn't work, you argued against it on the basis that white people would have to pay, and shouldn't.
Again, I do believe that white people bear the burden of ending racism. Where you get this idea that I am some sort of anti-activist, I have no idea. I have no problem with Affirmative Action except when it is forced on private businesses and instituted in public institutions where race shouldn't be a factor. I've said several times in this thread that if an employer wants to run its own Affirmative Action policy, that should be their right. Hell, the ones that do might get more minority applicants because of it.
Sure, there's the glibertarian justification- capital, not democracy, should run society. It's not your only justification.
You are deliberately misconstruing my views again. Yes, I believe in democracy, and the fact that I even have to explain that to you is ridiculous. No, I do not believe capitalists should run society. No, I do not believe that "tyranny of the majority" is right, except when it comes to protecting other freedoms. (For instance, I do not think the people have the right to vote polygamous marriage to be illegal, but I think they do have the right to vote on stricter laws and action against people who force others into polygamous marriage.)
Yes, white people fucked over basically every minority in US history. No, that doesn't mean their descendants have to be looked over for a position they are qualified for just because someone else who is equally qualified happens to be a minority. If it really gets down to the point where you have to pick between a white applicant and a black applicant, and both are equally qualified, and you want to be fair, flip a damn coin.
Too costly for white people, who shouldn't have to pay.
I'm pretty sure making children pay for their ancestors' crimes is one of the things we regularly condemn when it comes to quotes on the mainpage, Fred. What I take issue with is this mindset you seem to be showing that suggests all white people are somehow culpable for the oppression of all minorities. It comes across in your language and choice in words, such as when you said:
Well, as MLK said, white people did something special to black people, now they have to do something special FOR them, to make up for it.
1) You say that all white people are somehow collectively responsible for oppressing black people, like it's a fucking race war or something and all the white people went into their white people treehouse club to make a plan to bully all the black people for no reason, because white people are just dicks like that.
2) For some reason, you group in the descendants of the people responsible for oppression as if they were personally perpetuating it themselves. White people existing =/= black oppression.
And before you say something about how those are Martin Luther King's words and not yours, besides the fact that there is a [citation needed] to back up that claim, it is still an appeal to authority regardless which you have used in situations like when you not-so-subtly implied that Art is somehow opposed to Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement because he disagreed with you.
Allow me to edit this next bit you wrote so it's a little more clear.
For a supposed non-racist, you Martin Luthor King and the civil right movement seems to have trouble grasping the fact that people aren't part of some sort of racial collective hive mind. Race is nothing more than a collection of superficial physical characteristics. You Martin Luthor King and the civil right movement do know that you are essentially saying that anyone who is white is somehow responsible for slavery and the oppression of an entire race, regardless of whether or not they were even born when most of it happened, much less have the means or desire to do it, right? Sure, it's one thing to say that the well-off should try to give a hand-up to those who are worse off, but to judge whether nor not any given person is worthy of such a hand-up purely on their race is extremely misguided and poorly-thought out at its very best.
If you say so. But at least direct you accusations of anti-white racism where they should go.
Also, silly glibertarianism:
But there is no grounds to force someone to pick an equally qualified applicant over me because of my skin color.
Also, on the last part I bolded. You might not think that my views are acceptable, but that is just your opinion, and there is nothing intrinsically better about your opinion that makes it acceptable to impose it on everyone else through law.
Then there can be no law. All law is based in opinion.
If you are only going to dismiss my views out of hand as "silly" and insult them for no reason, then there is clearly no purpose in continuing this discussion with you.
You cannot impose a freedom on anybody. Does it make sense for a government to say, "Hey, I'm going to force you to have the freedom to follow whatever religion you want!"
Propaganda.
Again, you dismiss my views right out of hand as intellectually dishonest propaganda. I've really been trying to maintain some basic standards of respect throughout this thread, and I don't see why nobody has been able to reciprocate it.
Government does not 'impose freedom', it allows it. This is a good example of the emptiness and silliness of glibertarian 'philosophy'. Like your false dichotomy between law based in 'opinion' and faux-Natural law, based entirely in fact.
That was my entire point. When I wrote "You cannot impose a freedom on anybody," I was responding to the part where you said that, in your opinion, my views about Affirmative Action were unacceptable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your position this entire thread has been that government should force all employers, organizations, colleges, universities, and other institutions to adhere to an Affirmative Action policy, because to do otherwise would restrict people's liberties. My position this entire thread has been that government should not do precisely that, because instituting your opinions into law in and of itself is a restriction of people's liberties. The difference between my opinions on Affirmative Action and your opinions on Affirmative Action is that if mine were instituted into law, it would not violate anyone's liberties. Therefore, to say that my opinions instituted into law would impose themselves on the citizens the same way yours would is nonsensical.
All law is based in opinion, all law is legislated morality.
I don't deny that the bases of all laws and governments are based on opinion. I also don't deny that my political views are my opinion.
Basically my views can be summarized as "Your fist ends where my face begins," which I think allows everyone maximum liberty while also protecting them from anything that would enroach on that liberty.
It's 'glib', not lib because libertarian philosophy (Proudhon, Bakunin and so on) is the opposite to glibertarianism, not similar.
By all means, please continue to explain my own political views to me so that I can understand them and name-drop like you smart informed people do.
Glibertarianism is far too costly to be sustainable.
Explain, please. And stop insulting my views and dismissing me with unfunny puns in lieu of actual arguments.
Essentially, glibertarianism excludes a lot of government action (taxation, heavy regulation, Keynesian counter-cyclical policy) that is absolutely necessary for a working society. Look at glibertarianism is action- somewhere like Chile, which has moved from one economic collapse to another, with the economy barely holding together at all. Glibertarianism is wrong because it's impossible. You can't have 'small government', to use the derogatory phrase for good government. It doesn't work.
I do not oppose all taxation and I do not oppose all economic regulation. I'm not a Randroid or a Paulbot or one of the super-fundamentalist libertarians. You are attributing an entire class of ridiculous views to me based on only a few of the views I have stated.
Frankly I do not want to continue this discussion. You are misrepresenting the views of me and other posters, arguing dishonestly, and not engaging respectfully.
Frankly nothing good could come of a thread that implicitly states that anyone who disagrees with Affirmative Action is stupid and a hater of Martin Luther King, Jr.
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/318/515/9de.gif)
-
X=X, therefore Y=Y? No.
No, for both mathematics/logic and the current discussion.
-
X=X, therefore Y=Y? No.
Maybe I'm just being a thickie,
Indeed you are. You pointed out a few cases where continuing an action makes it worse, arguing that continuing an action always makes a situation worse. X=X, therefore Y=Y. This is not true. I've given examples where it is not.
Discrimination between competent and incompetent employees is justified. Equally, affirmative action is justified.
People who are incompetent are objectively worse employees than their competent counterparts. People who are black are objectively no better or worse than people of any other race.
[/quote]
You're catching on. Justified action is not the same as unjustified action, and does not perpetuate that unjustified action when it is designed to end it.
-
Indeed you are. You pointed out a few cases where continuing an action makes it worse, arguing that continuing an action always makes a situation worse. X=X, therefore Y=Y. This is not true. I've given examples where it is not.
My point, Einstein, is that just because you can come up with some completely different examples of similar actions fixing a problem (such as arresting a kidnapper), does not mean it's going work for racial prejudice. The examples I provided were to illustrate this point, namely that there exist completely unrelated situations where similar actions make the original problem far worse. In a nutshell, the examples provided by either of us have fuck all to do with affirmative action, and your attempt to use them as a valid argument is just plain stupid. Basic shit.
You're catching on. Justified action is not the same as unjustified action, and does not perpetuate that unjustified action when it is designed to end it provided it has been designed well.
You see the bolded part that I added? That's what I'm saying affirmative action is not. It's also something you've yet to effectively refute, and instead have tried to constantly shift the goal posts with vague arguments of why government intervention is sometimes justified.
-
You're catching on. Justified action is not the same as unjustified action, and does not perpetuate that unjustified action when it is designed to end it provided it has been designed well.
You see the bolded part that I added? That's what I'm saying affirmative action is not. It's also something you've yet to effectively refute, and instead have tried to constantly shift the goal posts with vague arguments of why government intervention is sometimes justified.
A new argument. Well, if affirmative action won't work (and you're going to have to make that argument) what will?
-
I recommend reading the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on Affirmative Action (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/) and in particular the section (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/#9) on question of whether those affected by Affirmative Action "deserve" their ends. There's something in it for everybody.
Most relevant parts:
A defender [of affirmative action] might answer in the way that Charles Lawrence and Mari Matsuda do in their 1997 book, We Won't Go Back: “All the talk about class, the endless citings of the ‘poor white male from Appalachia,’ cannot avoid the reality of race and gender privilege” (Lawrence & Matsuda 1997, 190–191). White privilege means that racial preferences really do balance the scales. Male privilege means that gender preferences really do make selections fairer. There must be no concession: in every case the loser in affirmative action is not the more deserving.[51]
[...]
However, programs that give blanket preferences by race or gender are hardly “precisely tailored” to match desert and reward since, as Lawrence and Matsuda themselves acknowledge at one place, the white male “privilege” is “statistical” (Lawrence & Matsuda 1997, 252). Yet it is individuals, not statistical averages, who gain or lose in admissions determinations and employment selections. [emphasis mine]
The programs legitimated under the Civil Rights Act, in both their nonpreferential and preferential forms, had—and have—a clear aim: to change institutions so that they can meet the nondiscrimination mandate of the Act. Selection by race or gender was—and is—a means to such change. To the extent that such selection also compensates individuals for past wrongs or puts people in places they really deserve, these are incidental by-products of a process aimed at something else. [emphasis mine]
As for my own opinion? I don't think it's possible for any individual to deserve (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/desert/#3) their circumstances (I don't think the idea of desert makes sense). I see merit-based allocation of positions as a way to maximize the productivity of society, not as a way of "giving people what they deserve". If diversity improves productivity in the long term (and for the moment I believe that it does), then Affirmative Action is justified.
-
Yes, I believe in democracy,
the government has no place in forcing that ideology upon other institutions or itself
I'm pretty sure making children pay for their ancestors' crimes is one of the things we regularly condemn when it comes to quotes on the mainpage, Fred.
Well, okay. The beneficiaries of historical racism shouldn't give up any of that benefit to deal with racism.
Well, as MLK said, white people did something special to black people, now they have to do something special FOR them, to make up for it.
Firstly, I didn't make that case, MLK did. But I do agree that the people who benefit from racism (which still exists) should pay to get rid of it. Not as punishment, not because they are personally responsible, but because someone has to pay.
And before you say something about how those are Martin Luther King's words and not yours, besides the fact that there is a [citation needed] to back up that claim,
Fair enough.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/affirm25.htm
it is still an appeal to authority
Pre-emptive strike against bullshit accusations of racism, or misuse of MLK. Which I had to use after being accused of hating white people (despite being white).
Also, silly glibertarianism:
But there is no grounds to force someone to pick an equally qualified applicant over me because of my skin color.
Also, on the last part I bolded. You might not think that my views are acceptable, but that is just your opinion, and there is nothing intrinsically better about your opinion that makes it acceptable to impose it on everyone else through law.
Then there can be no law. All law is based in opinion.
If you are only going to dismiss my views out of hand as "silly" and insult them for no reason, then there is clearly no purpose in continuing this discussion with you.
You cannot impose a freedom on anybody. Does it make sense for a government to say, "Hey, I'm going to force you to have the freedom to follow whatever religion you want!"
Propaganda.
Again, you dismiss my views right out of hand as intellectually dishonest propaganda. I've really been trying to maintain some basic standards of respect throughout this thread, and I don't see why nobody has been able to reciprocate it. [/quote]
'Impose a freedom' is a meaningless phrase. I don't see why it deserves any more respect than that.
Government does not 'impose freedom', it allows it. This is a good example of the emptiness and silliness of glibertarian 'philosophy'. Like your false dichotomy between law based in 'opinion' and faux-Natural law, based entirely in fact.
My position this entire thread has been that government should not do precisely that, because instituting your opinions into law in and of itself is a restriction of people's liberties.
Well, fine. If legislating opinion is restrictive of liberty, we can't have any law. Even laws against murder or theft are based in opinion.
The difference between my opinions on Affirmative Action and your opinions on Affirmative Action is that if mine were instituted into law, it would not violate anyone's liberties. [/quote}
Except the victims of racism.
Basically my views can be summarized as "Your fist ends where my face begins," which I think allows everyone maximum liberty while also protecting them from anything that would enroach on that liberty. [/quote}
JS Mill. Unfortunately, Mill is far too simplistic. The most important violations of freedom- poverty, unemployment and the rest- require infringements of other liberties to make them good.
-
A new argument. Well, if affirmative action won't work (and you're going to have to make that argument) what will?
I honestly don't know what additional measures should be taken, but if you want an example of what I do support, I will say that I think hate crime laws are an example of a proper anti-racism measure. Not only does it target and penalise bigoted people rather than just whites in general (including non-bigoted whites), but it penalises all forms of bigotry, not just white-on-other-races racism. While it certainly has its flaws, it's doesn't actively enforce racial discrimination and instead penalises it, which if you ask me, is what any legislation that's intended to combat racism should do.
-
Hate crime laws are welcome, though not close to being sufficient. Hate crime laws prevent racially-motivated violence, which is not the most serious form of racism.
it's doesn't actively enforce racial discrimination and instead penalises it, which if you ask me, is what any legislation that's intended to combat racism should do.
I don't see how this follows. There is a problem- anti-black racism. You say that any attempt to solve anti-black racism also has to help whites. Why? Imagine if we ran all policy like this. We try to solve poverty by giving everyone in America the same amount of money. Obviously that's an inappropriate standard.
The most important standard for a policy is efficacy. Everything else is secondary.
-
'Impose a freedom' is a meaningless phrase. I don't see why it deserves any more respect than that.
Government does not 'impose freedom', it allows it. This is a good example of the emptiness and silliness of glibertarian 'philosophy'. Like your false dichotomy between law based in 'opinion' and faux-Natural law, based entirely in fact.
Didn't the U.S. just spend a lot of money and a lot of lives trying to impose (its standard of) freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan? It worked out really well too.
-
I don't see how this follows. There is a problem- anti-black racism. You say that any attempt to solve anti-black racism also has to help whites. Why? Imagine if we ran all policy like this. We try to solve poverty by giving everyone in America the same amount of money. Obviously that's an inappropriate standard.
The most important standard for a policy is efficacy. Everything else is secondary.
I was talking about racism in general, not just anti-black racism. All racism equally toxic to society and should be treated as such. That said, if you want me to use anti-black racism as a specific example, I'll just say that it's not going to be fixed by penalising all non-blacks. It's certainly fair to assist any blacks who are at a disadvantage due to racism, and punish those who perpetuate such racism. However, it most certainly should not indiscriminately penalise both racist and non-racist non-blacks.
-
Affirmative action is racist, that cannot be denied as it is using race as one of the selection criteria, unfortunately it is also a necessary evil.
While saying it is not necessary and unfair for whites, and that we should live in a meritocracy, one must never forget that we live in a world full of racist assholes. The role of affirmative action may not seem like much in America, but in South Africa it is racist to the extreme but also completely necessary. In South Africa the majority of employers are white and if they were allowed to they would also only hire white people. Even with Affirmative action in place this is still the most common occurrence, despite black applicants vastly outnumbering white applicants.
Affirmative action does marginalize whites to a degree. In South Africa it is completely impossible for a 50+ year old white male to get a job, and one of the reasons for that is affirmative action. As a result Affirmative action does perpetuate racism. However, one must realize first that racism cannot be magically abolished. People are racist, and many use that racism in decision making. Affirmative action hopes to level the playing fields for the more traditionally marginalized members of society, the vast number of who were prevented from getting jobs as a result of race.
Like I said affirmative action is racist, but a necessary evil. especially since economic levels between racial groups are still so different. As time allows for the differences between race groups to minimize then systems like affirmative action can begin to be scrapped. However until then, it is unfortunately necessary.
-
'Impose a freedom' is a meaningless phrase. I don't see why it deserves any more respect than that.
Government does not 'impose freedom', it allows it. This is a good example of the emptiness and silliness of glibertarian 'philosophy'. Like your false dichotomy between law based in 'opinion' and faux-Natural law, based entirely in fact.
Didn't the U.S. just spend a lot of money and a lot of lives trying to impose (its standard of) freedom in Iraq and Afghanistan? It worked out really well too.
Touche, though that is an exception.